Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/dwípōds
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Metaknowledge in topic RFD discussion: January–February 2018
@JohnC5, are you convinced that this actually should be reconstructed for PIE? Seems fishy to me. (Ditto for the three- and four-legged equivalents.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 08:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- I concur; all the descendants seem too transparent to go back all that way. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 11:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- I, too, am not convinced. I also notice that Vedic accent is dvipā́d ~ dvipád. I think the AG accent indicates a secondary formation using AG's default left-periphery accentuation. Latin and German are definitely secondary. I'll say that for *kʷétwr̥pōds the Vedic cátuṣ-pād ~ cátuṣ-pad matches AG τετράπους (tetrápous) and has normal bahuvrihi accentuation. For *trípōds. Vedic again has tripā́d ~ tripád. Taken together, I'd say that these would at least be oxytonic in PIE, but even then, almost none of thee forms match and could all be secondary. —*i̯óh₁nC[5] 21:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/trípōds edit
Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/kʷétwr̥pōds edit
There does not seem to be a reason to reconstruct these to PIE, and there is some potentially conflicting evidence. See Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/dwípōds. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- If I understood correctly, I think *kʷétwr̥pōds should be kept, since the AGr. evidence matches the Vedic one. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- Just because it matches does not mean that there is any positive evidence that it should be reconstructed, simply that there is no reason it absolutely can't be. @Per utramque cavernam, JohnC5 —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Eh. —*i̯óh₁nC[5] 08:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Metaknowledge: Forget my objection, I prefer that it be deleted. And I agree with this. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Eh. —*i̯óh₁nC[5] 08:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Just because it matches does not mean that there is any positive evidence that it should be reconstructed, simply that there is no reason it absolutely can't be. @Per utramque cavernam, JohnC5 —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- RFDO failed. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)